Hansen’s theory was based around the idea that small changes in “CO2 forcing” (makes me gag to use that term) would trigger all kinds of really bad things, which would feed back and produce an exponential rise in temperature.

Instead, temperatures have flatlined for 16 years – so they have switched over to making up BS about extreme weather.

It’s not cherry picking to start with the last data point you have and work backwards to see how long a cooling trend extends for. Because the question is, how long has the current cooling trend lasted for? There is only one way to answer that question correctly.

If you don’t like the answer to that question and want to ask and have answered some other question, that’s fine. If you want to attempt to explain why you think the question shouldn’t be asked or is invalid, etc., that’s fine. But don’t accuse someone of cherry picking when it’s apparent you actually don’t understand what the term means.

How long into the past can we go and find similar temperatures as we are experiencing today? I am betting Thousands of years! And many times during that interval, such as in the 1800s, 1200s, 900s 400sBCE,ETC>

It’s beginning to become clear that your use of the term “cherry-picked date” means the use of any date that fails to have a positive trend as a result.

But, since you think that selection of a El Nino year somehow invalidates the question of how long the current cooling trend has lasted, please help us out.

Please show us any peer-reviewed paper that proves a valid link between the timing or strength of the El Nino/La Nina process and anthropogenic CO2.

If a start date using an El Nino year is wrong, then so would the use of beginning a chart using a La Nina year to prove warming. There was a strong La Nina episode during 1988–1989. Is that why that period is so useful to “the cause”?

Well, switch to 2001 which is when the IPCC AR4 model projections start. No 1998 El Nino to worry about and you’ve still got a cooling trend.

(But to be honest, the reason why it’s so easy to create a cool or warming trend is due to the fact that what we are trying to measure is extremely small compared to the natural variability in the system.)

If CO2 were to heat things up, which it doesn’t, the net result would be extra water vapor, you know, clouds, which would cool things down. Right? Not according to the warmists. It’s another one of their insane upside down ideas. If fact, they maintain that for every degree of CO2 initiated warming, 3 additional degrees of water vapor induced warming would occur. Now, that would cause a whole shitload of additional CO2 to come out of the oceans (because CO2 levels change as a result of temperature changes), which would cause more heating, which would cause a lot more clouds, and so more heating, and so more CO2 coming out of the oceans, on and on, until the oceans are boiling. A runaway greenhouse effect.
But that’s not the way it is. Look at this short video that shows algor to be a buffoon in the false claims he made about CO2 in his movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag. The video shows that CO2 rises and falls as a result of temperature change, that is the clear correlation, and their is no indication that CO2 causes temperature change. And talk about feedbacks, if CO2 were both a cause and an effect of temperature change, any rise in CO2 would feed upon itself like starving piranhas, and so a long long time ago we would have had a runaway greenhouse effect … until the oceans boiled. But we haven’t had that, even though in the past CO2 rose to as high as 7100ppm. There is no way CO2 is both a cause and effect of temperature change. Is there anything wrong with my reasoning? Please inform me of what it is if you think that’s the case.

I think runaway greenhouse is the sort of thing James Hansen talks about when he has a microphone in front of him, but I doubt very much his models or any of the IPCC models show such an effect as possible. You need to distinguish between what the average Warmist believes and what these guys can really back up in terms of claims made. Remember, your average Warmist has never read an IPCC report. It’s sufficient for them that they simply exist and they think they know what they say.

Yes, the warmists like Hansen would be playing too big of a fear card (because it obviously doesn’t jive with the historical record) if they made a big squawk about a runaway greenhouse effect threat. But, it either is going to be a runaway greenhouse effect, or nothing. Because if CO2 were both a cause and an effect of temperature change, we would be in for a quick doomsday ride. But CO2 cannot be both a cause and an effect of temperature change, because, despite past CO2 levels as high as 7100ppm, the record is clear that there have been no runaway greenhouses that have affected the third rock from the sun.

Well, I guess if it were a tiny cause, of insignificant warming, which is what many lukewarmers maintain CO2 is, but there’s no evidence for even that. The disastrous level of extreme warming that the warmists claim CO2 will cause is not consistent with CO2 being just a tiny cause of warming — it would lead to a runaway greenhouse, and again, the record shows that doesn’t happen. More likely, the theoretical models which have CO2’s greenhouse effect nil after 200ppm are correct. The evidence for it causing climate warming.. doesn’t exist. It is all speculation stemming from a (faulty) theoretical model of the greenhouse effect. CO2 could be a cause of warming but be so insignificant that it doesn’t change temperature by any measurable amount. But but… what about the 20th century warming? That was only natural.

CO2, has become the UNFALSEABLE theory…because EVERYTHING is caused by it….even this upper case LOWER case…
case in point….Arctic ice last fall….very little..SO what….but DO not look to the Antarctic…..what was that word they used to use…..Global….now has become regional…now has become LOCAL…

TPeel…you are the kind that just piss me off…go to 350 org…i’m sure they would love you comments…but don’t post anything negative,…you would be banned…nice though that Steve allows you to at least post…however, you need to take the blinders off.

Sorry to put a little pin prick into your feedback theory, but did you also know when a guitar “amplifier” begins to “feedback”, energy is “added” to the system? Did you know that in the old days, when we used tubes in our guitar “amplifiers”, you could damage them with too much “feedback”. Did you also know that modern “amplifiers” also have built in circuitry to protect against this very problem? As the more and longer sustained the feedback, the greater the electrical draw.

Don’t know if you are trying to be funny, or trying to make a point. If you are trying to be funny, I get it, and “good one”. If you are trying to make a point, you are stupid.

One of my hobbies when I was younger was working as a sound and lighten engineer, I thought the funny part was clear? and yes I know about amplifiers, Ive worked with serious equipment, from recording studio sound desks to programmable dimmer-packs, Didn’t you watch the Spinal Tap video ’11’? Listen to what the argument is about.

TPeel says: February 17, 2013 at 1:29 am
Cherry-picked start date with the 1998 mega El Nino sitting right at the front.
=============================================
Inane lie. The chart starts in 1997 or sooner, not an El Nino year. Beyond that, the period of no warming, or even cooling with out the biased adjustments, is now as long as the period of warming. In every case the C is missing from CAGW, and now, the W is missing as well. All that is left is AGG, Anthropogenic Global Greening. Nothing is more green then CO2.